Relativism and Universalism in Linguistics - Fachbereich 10 ...

Workshop 5 – Gro 179
Phasal Structure and Quantifier Scope
Kiss, Katalin É.
Budapest
ekiss@nytud.hu
In Hungarian, a language with overt Q-Raising, quantifier scope interpretation displays an
interesting asymmetry: preverbal quantifiers c-command and precede their scope, hence their
surface order corresponds to their surface order; postverbal quantifiers, on the other hand,
have identical scopes, i.e., they can be interpreted in any order. It will be shown that
quantifier interpretation is linked to V-movement. For example, the very same TP-adjoined
quantifiers that have a fixed relative scope if the V remains in T, become scopally ambiguous
if the V is raised to a higher functional head:
(1) [TopP János [TP minden bizottságot [TP kétszer is [TP össze hívott [vP…]]]]] every>2
John every committee twice called together
‘John called together every committe twice.’
(2) [TopP János [FocP MÚLT HÉTEN hívott [TP minden bizottságot kétszer is össze]]] every>2
John last week called every committee twice together 2>every
‘It was last week that John called together every committee twice.’
It will be argued that the extended V-chain created by V-raising acts as a new phase, with the
postverbal internal domain of the V-chain functioning as the phasal domain. That is, scopal
neutralization in TP takes place if TP is relegated to the domain of a higher phase.
The talk will also check if the correlation between phasal structure and scope interpretation
also holds in other languages with overt Q-Raising, e.g. Chinese.
Local vs. Global Simplicity in the C-Domain
Lahne, Antje
Leipzig
lahne@uni-leipzig.de
The cartographic approach is based on the assumptions that a functional head is made up by
exactly one “syntactically relevant feature”, i.e. that there are no originally complex heads
(“local simplicity”; Rizzi 2004: 7), and, as a consequence, that there is exactly one structural
specifier position. These assumptions then logically force us to assume the C domain being
made up of a system of distinct heads. Rizzi (2004: 8):
“Natural languages favour local simplicity, and accept paying the price of
ending up with global representations involving […] very rich articulation of
functional structures.”
An attempt to translate this idea into a minimalist framework was to say that the core category
C may be “shorthand for referring to a more articulated structural zone” (again, Rizzi 2004).
In my talk I will show that this approach cannot, however, be implemented in a minimalist
system. First of all, heads are always bundles of features. Secondly, there is evidence that we
have to admit multiple specifiers into analysis. I propose an analysis of the C domain as a
singular CP with multiple specifiers (as sketched in Chomsky 2005). Empirically detected
ordering and compatibility constraints for functional categories are translated into a languagespecific
feature hierarchy in C_min. I discuss the exact implementation of this idea, as well as
potential problems and their solutions.
The talk will promote an interesting discussion about relativism insofar as it touches the
question of ‘good language design’. Chomsky (2001: 1-2):